If trust is not built in Manipur now, the rifts will become unbridgeable

Sudeep Chakravarti

Do we—do you?—wish for Manipur to be at peace? Or do we—do you?—wish for Manipur to be in pieces? I asked these questions at the beginning of a public lecture in Imphal in end-August. The topic? Building trust in Manipur.

To my mind—and surely, in the consideration of those in Manipur who believe in equitable futures—the events that triggered May 2023 were entirely avoidable. And here we are, three years later, with a torn and traumatised gateway state at India’s border with Myanmar.

The state’s three major ethnic groups, the Meitei, the Naga, and the umbrella Kuki-Chin-Zo remain deeply suspicious of the other. And two hyphenations, Meitei-Kuki and Kuki-Naga, who have hurt, maimed, and killed each other—most recently, four Naga men, two just boys, killed by suspected Kuki militants just the day before my talk in front of politicians, army and security officers, bureaucrats, academics, and students. As I write this, news arrived of two Kuki villagers being killed by suspected Naga militants. Are we to see a redux of the horrors of the early 1990s?

From the current cycle of conflict alone Manipur has clocked nearly 300 dead and more than 60,000 displaced people, while renewed violence and security operations continued to pose risks, as does hostage-taking and the expansion of violence beyond the initial Meitei vs Kuki-Chin-Zo construct. Alongside, there is destruction of homes and religious sites, territorial separation, armed mobilisation, economic disruption—and a profound collapse of trust between communities.

Manipur Must Listen to Itself

In its eagerness to listen to New Delhi, Manipur has for long forgotten to listen to itself. Not just Imphal Valley where most Meitei live, but also the hills, home to the Nagas and the Kuki conglomerate. Each community appears to have forgotten what it is to listen to another community.

Even so, over the past two years there have been several initiatives and proposals—all geared towards damage control, and towards generating trust and truth-telling. There have been engagements by the Union ministry of home affairs, Meitei and Kuki-Zo civil-society initiatives for dialogue, reiteration of Naga concerns, articulation of the priorities of security-forces, and concerns of human-rights organisations.

There have been other discussions. A recent commentary on Manipur in India Today-NE, for example, stated that the separation of populations can institutionalise ethnic division, and argued for the safe return of the displaced, impartial policing, inclusive dialogue, and the protection of coexistence. Another recent analysis, in the Imphal Review, recommended institutionalised dialogue, youth exchanges, joint economic initiatives, and rehabilitation. People’s Union for Civil Liberties also proposed a roadmap in late-2025.

So, in a way what I propose is a synthesis, with the addition of several complementary points.

What we need is a policy-oriented approach to trust and truth-telling, rather than a claim that any one community or institution has either absolute say, or that any one community or any one institution has endorsed the entire framework. The central premise of the approach is that Manipur cannot be brought back to peace simply by stopping the shooting and the killings, nor by imposing a settlement from New Delhi.

The process needs to be sequenced. Security. Humanitarian recovery. Political dialogue. Justice and truth alongside reconciliation. And, finally, a new institutional compact for co-existence.

A Framework For Trust, For Peace

This multi-level framework—call it the Framework for Security, Political Dialogue, Justice, Reconciliation and Shared Development for Manipur—is necessary because the conflict in Manipur has moved beyond the stage of an ordinary law-and-order crisis. The violence that began in May 2023 deepened a three-sided dimension involving Meitei, Kuki-Chin-Zo, and Naga interests, while armed groups, border dynamics, Myanmar’s continuing instability, and competing political claims complicate any simple settlement.